September 12, 2006

Can someone explain why Olbermann is going on and on blaming Bush for the fact that the World Trade Center site has not been rebuilt and that there is no memorial there yet?

I do understand that he wants to use what he crudely calls the "hole" as a metaphor for the "hole" "in the fabric of our nation," but it's an inaccurate set-up for what isn't exactly a brilliant literary device. There's video and text at the link. I watched the first quarter of the video -- the WTC site is visible behind him -- then had to switch to the text because his heavy-handed delivery was getting on my nerves. Why doesn't mainstream media find better people to put on the air?

Scrolling way down into the extended text, we find this:

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Now, class the lesson for today is alliteration. He's really trying hard to write well. Earlier in this peroration, he was quoting the Gettysburg Address, and it's easy to tell he thinks he's bringing us elevated text.

Here's something about "The Path to 9/11":

A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

Does the average viewer even know who the hell he's talking about or does this just sound nutty? So... uh ... Disney?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded — are still succeeding — as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero…

So too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding — as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

A wedge to pit? Well, maybe someone who cranks out prose like this and doesn't seem to think any editing is necessary also thinks you can quickly sketch out a design for a series of buildings and get going. (The memorial at Gettysburg was dedicated only four months after the battle, he tells us.) There was, of course, an early design for the reconstruction -- and, of course, it had nothing to do with Bush -- but it went nowhere, because it wasn't very good. (I don't know what physical monument Lincoln stood near when he gave the Gettysburg Address, but I think I can fairly assume it was the sort of thing that would be met with cries of outrage today. That said, maybe we should have put up a simple slab of marble with a reverent inscription. But that's another matter, and it's got nothing to do with Bush.)

Olbermann's drivel ends this way:

When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…

When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Should we forgive Olbermann for using the World Trade Center site as a backdrop and a metaphor for his (atrociously written) political speech?

When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"

No Keith, you are scolded because your questions and arguments are not made in good faith. Your kind use 9-11 as a tool to bash your political opponents. Just be grateful so many are so tolerant of you - I would bring the tar and feathers.

I don't think the comparison is fair. Fred Phelps is a true wacko nut job. In the Gaussian Distribution of Life, he is Mr. 10 Standard Deviations below the mean. Olbermann is just someone with a TV show to hype. Little different from Ann Coulter, Jerry Springer, Bill Bennett or any of the other many who make a living shouting Look At Me!!!!

A good many of these folks, such as Mr. Olbermann, deserve our sympathy, not comtempt. They seem to be suffering from the home-front equivalent of battle fatigue. There's a lot of stress and fear in the air, and they've caught the bug. How else to explain the sudden feverish psychic shifts of people like Neil Young and Andrew Sullivan?

There also seems to be some kind of weird psychological father-figure transference at work. Why do so many despise our father-figure protector president while never saying the merest harsh word about tentacled suicide masters like bin Laden?

I want to see a Keith Olbermann / Donald Trump debate over what to build over the hole in the ground. Just for the bizzaro universe exchanges.

Personally I'm glad nothing is happening and hope nothing happens for a lot longer. Then maybe we'll see some urban planning instead of office buildings as metaphors. The longer nothing is done, the more time there is for all the overblown ideas of the moment to get shelved. As for the memorial, some text carved in marble would be enough.

I am not quite sure I understand Olbermann's logic. Apparently, Bush hasn't taken his part of the respnsibility for 9/11 yet, but Clinton has? That the Road to 9/11 is somehow evil because it puts that into question? But then Democratic Senators are somehow heroic by trying to keep the movie from running? And Clinton, who presumably has taken his part of the responsibility for 9/11 has had his minions threatening to sue over the movie?

I would almost suspect from Ann's excerpts that a big part of the reason for Olbermann's rant is that movie and the fact that it pointed out that threat of Islamic terrorism didn't start on 9/11, and that the Clinton Administration spent its eight years asleep at the help, never realizing that we were already at war.

The other thing is that he seems to think that President Bush has a responsibility to apologize for anything bad that happens on his watch. My suspicion is that part of this is liberal feel-good, and the rest is political gotcha.

Personally, I would prefer Bush's energies to be focused on fighting and winning against global terror, and making sure something like 9/11 never happens again. The hole at Ground Zero, emotionally significant as it is, isn't hurting anybody. Yes, of course, we should build whatever committee-designed monstrosity they've thought up this week, but that's not Bush's responsibility.

It's so funny, because I just got done saying that Olbermann has been Murrow-esque lately.

I guess it comes down to the fact that, for those who lean left like I do, there just aren't THAT many people in the news media who will overtly lean left with us. I'm not saying there are no liberals in the news media, but most are so worried about being called "members of the liberal media" that they won't do it overtly.

Sometimes he is over the top, but you also have to remember that those of us who are already predisposed to be aligned with his point of view have spent the past few months being told that simply by disagreeing we are enabling the terrorists.

Not that we haven't been told that before, it's just been particularly Godwin-ish lately.

I understand that some won't like Olbermann, but his rhetoric is no less aggregious than that of a Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly, we're just used to hearing those on the right speak this way (even if they do so with less alliteration).

Maybe Olbermann's appeal isn't in his subtle prose, but his expression of indignation on a lot of peoples' behalf. If anything, Olbermann is trying to create himself as a Bill O'Reilley or Rush Limbaugh of the left. Should we spend a day talking about O'Reilley's prose? Or would that kind of miss the point?

I think the key to the Angry Left is the angry, not the left. There doesn't seem to be a policy vision. I'm all mad at the federal president because a building and a memorial have not yet been built in the city of New York. That's not a policy vision. That's a ridiculous rant that does not even try to understand federalism.

As I have been saying for awhile, Bush and the Republican Congress are grossly mediocre and have been for six years. What does that imply about the quality of the opposition?

Isn't the WTC site *mostly* private property? I know the owners and designers need to coordinate with New York City's supervisors, environmental groups, city planners, the FAA, etc...and most of the designs have met with everything from scorn to apathy.

I don't remember hearing about the President's desire to see Doric columns spaced between flying butresses on a 120-story skyscraper. I fail to see where the President has anything to do with the designs of the rebuilt WTC.

Now, I will admit that I'm somewhat surprised the Pentagon Memorial hasn't been built yet, and the funds still haven't been raised.

Olberman's funny when he rants against the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly, but this one falls short.

I forgot about Hannity. Now there's a guy with a lot of brilliant insights...

I think people assume too much that everybody on the left has a graduate degree and lives in the Northeast, while we accept that people on the right will talk to their masses as if they're complete idiots, because we assume that they are.

I bet less than 5% of the population knows or cares what a mixed metaphor is, even among Olbermann's target audience. It's not to say they're all idiots, but it's to say they're not all brilliant law professors either.

The main reason there is no memorial at Ground Zero is due to committees made up of people like Olberman.

The few designs to make it to review are notable for the theme they carry; America had it coming and here is a list of reasons why.

The last time I checked the actual memorial for the WTC dead and their families was in a back corner of the planned memorial. To get to it one would have had to walk through displays of everything our country has allegedly done wrong in our history.

People like Olberman wish we could return to a pre 9/11 mentality on the one hand then design a memorial that says we deserved it.

One design I observed of the proposed Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania looked like the Islamic flag when viewed from above.

Olberman and his ilk are convinced that America deserved what it got and are nothing more than apologists for America and our culture. Islam terms this behavior dhimmitude.

I don't think that's true, Macka. In fact, I think it's kind of absurd. Labor -- usually welders, not law professors -- and the poor are generally thought to be the biggest voting blocs of the left, along with goofy leftist intellectuals.

I don't think anyone thinks the left is smarter than the right. I just think everyone expects -- or wants -- commentary that is, you know, not horrid.

Mango has it right:Personally, I would prefer Bush's energies to be focused on fighting and winning against global terror, and making sure something like 9/11 never happens again.

As for a memorial - right now the hole in the ground, the cross that is viewable from Church Street, and the firefighter wall that is supposed to be on Liberty are enough for now. Give the city time to figure out exactly what to do there. This is a local issue - not federal.

The WTC site is owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ run by a board appointed by the 2 states Governors. To add to the confusion, they had just leased the site to Larry Silverman before the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Silverman owns the right to rebuild the site, under the direction of the PA and the City and State of NY. Seems that there is already too much government involvement here, 7 WTC is up and getting leased, built by Mr. Silverman with no government committee interference, because it was across the street from the main site. Is there a lesson here?

Who? Olbermann? I wouldn't go so far as blaming him for Katrina. Rather, it was a natural phenomenon, compounded by decades of pork barrel politics that directed LA's more than fair share of the national resources into less useful projects through the process known as "earmarking". While Olbermann may support the politicians who did force the CoE into spending the money it spent in LA foolishly, I don't think that we can assume that he truly knew that they would do so.

The WTC site is owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ run by a board appointed by the 2 states Governors. To add to the confusion, they had just leased the site to Larry Silverman before the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Silverman owns the right to rebuild the site, under the direction of the PA and the City and State of NY. Seems that there is already too much government involvement here, 7 WTC is up and getting leased, built by Mr. Silverman with no government committee interference, because it was across the street from the main site. Is there a lesson here?

Olbermann mixed far too many talking points together, and ends up sounding like a less literate version of that old fraud Ward Churchill.

That "Five years later this space… is still empty" is a "nightmare" for the US? My nightmare was a hundred more 9/11s. The lack of a new WTC wasn't high on my list of scary dreams.

That "no Memorial to the dead" was unpredictable? Didn't it take a few years just to clean it out? Weren't there still forensic questions a year later? Weren't they still sifting for any possible record of the dead to give back to the families? And even longer to settle the legal issues? Weren't there godawful committees that came up with plans since rejected? And whose responsibility in New York is it for the memorial? Where's Hillary been in this demand?

"the terrorists… are clearly, still winning"Really? They're "clearly" beating us? By what criterion? I'm not a gambler, but I would love to bet on football against this maroon; his definition of "winning" is generous to a fault, not unlike the participation ribbons given out in junior league soccer.

Hey, al Qaeda: everyone's a winner in this war! here's your Ken Olbermann Participation ribbon! Be sure to share it with Saddam; he won, too!

Olbermann is a whiny teenager. "I don't like the world you gave me, man. I didn't ask to be born." He needs to move out of his mom's basement.

Perhaps, because Olbermann is feeling increasingly irrelevant. And is just another shrieking, hysterical member of the far left.

Btw, I read the NY Post 2-3 times a week and the Ground Zero issue is entirely a NY state and NY City intramural scrum. I never hear the feds nor the president mentioned in the stories about what to do with the site. And Olbermann is well aware of that.

I think a lot of us are taught somewhere down the line that mixed metaphors are not the best way to express oneself, but it has only been in the last year, after reading a number of online sources that highlight this, that I have even begun to recognize the "problem". And mostly, that is a result of some of the more prominent Democratic politicians seeming to be in a contest recently to see who could put the largest number of mixed metaphores together into a single paragraph, or, even worse, single sentence.

Olberman and his ilk are convinced that America deserved what it got and are nothing more than apologists for America and our culture. Islam terms this behavior dhimmitude.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If you dare oppose the President then you are somehow at worst, a terrorist yourself, or at best a terrorist sympathizer. It's ridiculous that there's no room for dissent in this country, even if you feel the dissent is misguided.

It's ridiculous that there's no room for dissent in this country, even if you feel the dissent is misguided.

There's room for dissent. The problem is that the Moonbats have marginalized the Left with all the ANSWER talking points. No one takes dissent from the Left seriously anymore because most of it has been BDS-related.

Bush had been imunized from honest criticism, and thats bad for the nation.

Well, apparently since dissent is now forbidden, and you voiced it here, I would seriously start looking over your shoulder. Most likely, your last post is already in the hands of the NSA, CIA, FBI, TSA, DOD, DOE, and the Forest Service. Hopefully, you don't live near any National Forests, so you should at least be safe until later today.

Oh, there's way more than a dime between Paul Wellstone's funeral and Fred Phelps. Stop being hyperbolic. I wasn't at Wellstone's funeral -- but if what went on gave comfort to his grieving family, by maybe convincing them that he wasn't dead, or that the policies he fought for didn't die with him, well who is anyone to deny a grieving family that? I'm not sure how you can compare that to Fred Phelps and his family faithfully flogging the fag flag every chance they get. (Wow, alliteration can be fun)

It does take too darn long for anything to get done when you involve citizen and government consensus.

As noted, WTC 7 is built and occupying as we speak, by private people.

Look how long it takes for less contentious memorials in DC to be built. forever.

Having toured Europe a lot and also New England, I like simple War Memorials. You go to any village in France, and many in Germany, UK, or Belgium and you see a simple granite Obelisk with the names of the war dead inscribed.

Make me the Memorial Czar and I would put up an interim monument.

Two granite pillars, offset models of WTC1 and WTC2 large enough to hold the inscribed names of the dead. with a fire bell out front.

Simple, elegant, understated.

want to replace it later with something fancier or move it into the lobby of a museum, fine.

Olbermann has the integrity, grit and intellect to call out the failures of the Christo-fascist zombie regime which you all see to enjoy. Overblown rhetoric is defined by the blow-hearts Cheney, Rumsfeld & the puppet-monkey bush. The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says. 3/31/2005

I think it's quite possible that the average person is impressed by metaphors, and more impressed the more metaphors you mash together. I say god bless Keith Olbermann for giving the people what they want.

Now, on the other hand, if we had an unintelligent or inarticulate president, now that I would find problematic.

>Labor -- usually welders, not law professors -- and the poor are generally thought to be the biggest voting blocs of the left, along with goofy leftist intellectuals.<

Well, I'll accept that this is what most people think, but it's not how liberal and conservative elitists think. But then, most people wouldn't question Olbermann's use of heavy-handed rhetoric either.

re: "I wasn't at Wellstone's funeral -- but if what went on gave comfort to his grieving family, by maybe convincing them that he wasn't dead, or that the policies he fought for didn't die with him, well who is anyone to deny a grieving family that?"

I watched the funeral service on TV. It was a disgrace. 20,000 people came to the University of Minnesota basketball arena, with images of important visitors projected onto the huge TV screen there. Non-democrats who came to pay their repsects were actually booed, including Gov. Jesse Ventura, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and former Republican Sen. Rod Grams.

It became a ridiculous political rally and was such an embarrassment that it was felt to have played a role in republican Sen. Coleman's election over MN favorite son Walter Mondale, Wellstone's last-minute replacement.

And it was an early sign of BDS, as rumors that Bush had Wellstone's plane shot down began to circulate thereafter (by Ted Rall) and others).

fenris, both Bush and Olbermann are standing (perhaps not literally) on a graveyard, speechifying to make a point. They are both using the deaths of others, unrelated and unknown, to grind an axe to up ratings or to justify unpopular decisions (as if there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq). That says bad taste to me.

Wait -- Is he a sock-puppet or a monkey? Is this some new combination of Chimpy McHitlerPuppet? Or is it a delightful children's story? "Little Rabbit Foo Foo and the Magical Puppet-Monkey Bush." Why not both!

Seriously, you can't expect people to keep up with the slander du jour if you guys keep mixing them up. Could you maybe send out a weekly memo so we all know what to call him?

I read that as "Boring Republicans who attended to the funderal helped the family?"

I think the guy who gave that fiery speech later said he wasn't trying to cause a controversy, but was caught up in the emotion of trying to say what Wellstone believed in and fought for before his death. I can understand that and I can understand the speakers grief and shock at Wellstone's sudden death.

At the time - I did wonder about the personal motivations of all the "dignitaries" who came to the funeral. (Was it a duty; Was it a press-op?) Some were friends, and I'm sure quite welcome and comforting for the family...but the others?

As for Olbermann - I think his reference to the empty space was largely metaphorical - not so much a reference to the actual site, as a reference to the hole/split in the fabric of our body politic.

I think there's quite a difference. Lincoln was dedicating a cemetery as the Commander in Chief of the men he sent to fight and who died there. Bush is standing on the remains of 9/11 trying to get Republicans re-elected. Lincoln honored the dead. Bush is using them.

I think the guy who gave that fiery speech later said he wasn't trying to cause a controversy, but was caught up in the emotion of trying to say what Wellstone believed in and fought for before his death.

So it's understandable that Wellstone's son is angry not at his dad's death, but at his dad's political opponents and turns a funeral into a political rally -- because that's what dad would have wanted. Democrats were there because, you know, they really cared.

But the Republicans were the ones using the funeral to score political points.

Olbermann must have been inspired by Mayor Nagin's comments faulting progress in NYC but not enough progress in NOLA. Blaming Bush for NOLA's problems does get some traction -- even though those problems were 40 years in the making and exacerbated by local incompetencies.

Here, Olbermann tries to blame Bush for the WTC hole even tough it's generally known that the real problems there have been insurance lawsuits, local agency turf wars, and an emotional fight over the design of the memorial (which continues).

Olbermann is a dishonest hack. His idea of cleverness is mocking Nazi Sieg Heils. Why does anyone listen to him or give him more than quick glance if only to confirm that he's still wearing his bespoke clown shoes?

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced

I think the copperheads would have regarded that as a political program. Where Lincoln could have called for reconciliation and an end to bloodshed, he instead used the dead to bolster support for his unpopular war.

Well, apparently since dissent is now forbidden, and you voiced it here, I would seriously start looking over your shoulder. Most likely, your last post is already in the hands of the NSA, CIA, FBI, TSA, DOD, DOE, and the Forest Service. Hopefully, you don't live near any National Forests, so you should at least be safe until later today.

I didn't say that those of us who dissent are then rounded up. You are the one making me out to be a lunatic.

I'm just saying that, when we dissent, we are called hysterical (which is what you did) or terrorist sympathizers... These are not the only options. Just as Republicans are not a redneck, unintelligent, intolerant monolith, neither are Democrats a paranoid, hedging, dovish one.

geoduck: "As for Olbermann - I think his reference to the empty space was largely metaphorical - not so much a reference to the actual site, as a reference to the hole/split in the fabric of our body politic."

Yeah, that's why I said: "I do understand that he wants to use what he crudely calls the "hole" as a metaphor for the "hole" "in the fabric of our nation," but it's an inaccurate set-up for what isn't exactly a brilliant literary device." And "Should we forgive Olbermann for using the World Trade Center site as a backdrop and a metaphor for his (atrociously written) political speech?"

Olbermann's themes include Bush's incompetence and dementedness. I support both claims.

In a place with a Republican mayor, and (more importantly) a Republican governor, the Republican President (with a Republican congress) could not bully-pulpit his way to a reconstructed site. Or anywhere close. This is just one example of how his claims of vision and priority do not get GOOD RESULTS.

How much rope shall we give?

He is a bad government official, and he is our President. (Twice!!) Someone needs to stand up for this view, and give voice to the masses. Thus, Keith.

I'm brought to tears that someone is standing up to Bush's BS rhetoric, and using actual modern American rhetoric to do it. "America" is a modern faith, and I'm part of it. It leads me to love, and be open to, the neighbors I disagree with. And to fight, within a code of civics. I often fail.

Bush's rhetoric is dressed-up medievalism.

George W. Bush's heart of hearts loves his family, and has roots in a sliver of American society... but that heart, and those roots, fruit mere blood-money, damn oil, please-God brief power, and the myth of Rapture. Little else.

Where are the Conservative politicians threatening NBC affiliates broadcasting licenses?

I'd boycott NBC programming, but other than Conan, NFL Football and occaisonally Leno I don't watch NBC.

MSNBC and CNBC aren't particularly watchable either. Other than Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica there's nothing on the Sci-Fi channel.

It's not like Universal has been releasing films I have to rush out and see, either.

You can't boycott a product you weren't using in the first place, oh well.

Olbermann has been at MSNBC pretty much longer than he's ever been at any other job. Seems like he's just trying to force yet another producer to fire him (Dan Abrams, you have a decision to make, Olbermann's speech and its time and place crossed so many lines that it's not even worth crafting a metaphor for)

(and he was a fantastic sports anchor when he was on local TV in Los Angeles, he may be a crazed BDS infected moonbat, but he is most definitely NOT a second-rate hack as a sportscaster)

If he returned to being a sportscaster, I'd probably watch him again, otherwise his show, and the entire news channel he operates at can fling poo inside someone elses TV.

Broken down to its basics, that's all Olbermann was trying to do, fill up that 'hole' he was grandstanding in front of with his own rhetorical feces, and that stinks.

This is like that thread where people were defending the legitimacy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in comparison to that miniseries. Blatant case of "If someone I agree with does it, it's ok, anything coming from the other side is vile political posturing."

Madison Man: Do you really think that Lincoln was not playing politics with that speech? Did he not have ridiculous second-rate partisan hacks (who don't really know what they are talking about, like you) criticizing him about his war? Did he not face a fierce battle for re-election less than one year after that speech?

You try to sound clever. However, your lack of understanding of history -- not to mention your apparent belief that partisan politics began sometime around the Eisenhower administration -- belies a silliness and lack of understanding that is all too common among unserious and even serious leftists today. It's sad for you, really, because Bush is no Lincoln, and he has been ripe for defeat since 1999.

Someone needs to stand up for this view, and give voice to the masses. Thus, Keith. I'm brought to tears that someone is standing up to Bush's BS rhetoric, and using actual modern American rhetoric to do it.

Well you've got my sympathy. You're obviously leading with your heart, with good intentions, but your spokesperson is considered to be a Moonbat by everyone but the nutroots [Kos, DU, Huffington, etc].

If Olbermann didn't exist, Rove would need to create him. I'd like to thank Olbermann for freeing up Karl for other tasks.

"but that heart, and those roots, fruit mere blood-money, damn oil, please-God brief power, and the myth of Rapture."

Olbermann, not to mention Shimmy, really do perform a public service. Whenever I consider the shortcomings of George Bush, and wish we had leadership more skilled at communicating a positive vision, I see something like Olbermann's hateful toxic rant or Shimmy's hysterical nonsense.Then the alternative becomes painfully clear.

tjl:You said it, man. Shimmy's quote is both maudlin and twee, like a teenager's angst poetry.

Shimmy, turn off the the Cure CD. Come up outta the basement and smell the autumn air. Put away the dog-eared copy of Fahrenheit 911 and step away from the DU webpage. There's a battle to be won, and it ain't against Bush. Wake up.

I despise this man. Since I assume he has some intelligence, I also have to assume he's being consciously dishonest in his depiction of so much. How dare he talk about using 9-11 as a wedge issue while letting this mud drop out of his mouth.

Easy Tiger. Olbermann has to pay his dock fees at the Yacht Club somehow. He would have draped himself with WTC corpses if he thought it would increase his marketability and ratings.

There is nothing - nothing - worse for a country than dishonest, rage-filled dissent. Which is pretty much all the Democratic Party is these days, at its heart. Pointing out deep dishonesty is not the same as calling someone unpatriotic

He answers his own question with "We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have."

I read this to imply that President Bush has left the hole in the ground. If that's his take on it, perhaps I've misunderstood the facts. I seem to recall the hole in the ground was made by the Islamic terrorists who hijacked the planes and used them as cruise missles... How could I be so stupid? It was really BushHitler all along.

Meanwhile, on the topic of the appropriate memorial, I'm partial to a simple stone tablet listing the names of those who perished that day. It should be centered on the rooftop of a new tower that is twenty stories taller than the original towers and be directly situated between the two anti-aircraft batteries that are labled with the slogan "We will not forget."

Isn't a "hole in the ground" really the correct memorial anyway? Why are they (whomever "they" are) really wasting time and money trying to come up with some fancy-pants memorial that will never be enough for some and will always be too much for others?

I personally think they should leave it as is: a stunning reminder in it's ugliness and emptiness of what we lost on 9/11/01.

Meanwhile, on the topic of the appropriate memorial, I'm partial to a simple stone tablet listing the names of those who perished that day. It should be centered on the rooftop of a new tower that is twenty stories taller than the original towers and be directly situated between the two anti-aircraft batteries that are labled with the slogan "We will not forget."

Who knew that so many Althouse readers would be metaphor-impaired moonbats. Maybe they are just getting testy because they miss Ann's running commentary on Project Runway--don't worry, lads, it's baack!

For Fenrisulven's benefit, here's shorter George Bush Monday night:

Stop using 911 as a political weapon, because if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.

Keith was over the top with his message (and having listened to W's nonsense, who can blame him?), but it the reference seemed quite clear. How many times is it now that W said that he doesn't pay much attention to Osama bin Laden? Prior to his last speech, that is...

I'm simply amazed how long people can delude themselves by pretending to be the righteous. Hey, the Bolsheviks thought they were on the right side of history too, and it took 80 years to START undoing the damage (it may take another 180 to finish, though). So 6 years of Bushism is far too short for the bat-shit crazy contingent to become disillusioned. I just never expected the bat-shit crazy crowd to number 30% of American voters.

It doesn't surprise me that few are actually addressing the issues Olbermann raised.

1. Bush & Co. lied about why we went to war.2. BushCo calls anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist sympathizer.3. BushCo took an opportunity for healing and turned it to paranoia and hate.4. BushCo has continually used hate tactics to "win" elections.5. BushCo claims to be telepathic, by constantly telling people what they are really thinking and what their real motives are. 6. BushCo has used the events of 2001 in a blatant attempt to destroy civil liberties.

None of these things are debateable. They are facts. Maybe those of you who are more afraid of freedom than of totalitarianism rejoice in #6. Maybe those who are more interested in controlling your fellow Americans than living with their diversity think BushCo is great. I can't change that.

Most who support BushCo keep saying "Liberty is useless when you are dead."

I would say life is useless without liberty. Or, to quote a more famous American, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"

What happened to that noble sentiment? When did Americans become such lame, cowardly sheep that they forgot what real bravery is? (Hint: it isn't cheering a war on from the safety of a computer desk.)

Now I see where the 30% reside. This is quite the nice little asylum you've built for yourselves. Karl Rove must have amazing marionette skills, to get you all so hot over a cable newsman's opinion, given after 6 years of lies and thievery and illegal wars from a spoiled fratboy rich kid without an ounce of common sense or decency. Bush has failed to defend the country against terrorist attacks; that much is history. His long list of failures have cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, yet you poor fearful chickenhawks still think he's your dad, so he really loves us, even if he beats us and leaves us out in the cold. You support a guy that's already lost three wars, and you wonder why liberals rant? A little history and a little thinking seems to be too much to ask of you scaredy-cats. Boo!

Ron and anti-tron really need to ease back on the projection. Oh and that chickenhawk slur? Still? How would you suppose the majority of the military would take being called a chickenhawk by the likes of you? Or do you just consider them "stupid"? So hard to keep track of the particular contempt you have for different groups of Americans that disagree with you.

Ron and tron: with arguments as powerful as those, it's amazing me to that so few people take you seriously.

Also, tron, how do you know that bad, evil "BushCo claims to be telepathic, by constantly telling people what they are really thinking and what their real motives are." You must be a psychic yourself. Otherwise, how could you know this?

The remainder of your post is similarly meritless, but hey, keep up those ad hominems - Bush is still in power because people like you would rather insult your ideological opponents than seriously engage them in a battle of ideas.

It doesn't surprise me that few are actually addressing the issues Olbermann raised.

1. Bush & Co. lied about why we went to war.2. BushCo calls anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist sympathizer.3. BushCo took an opportunity for healing and turned it to paranoia and hate.4. BushCo has continually used hate tactics to "win" elections.5. BushCo claims to be telepathic, by constantly telling people what they are really thinking and what their real motives are. 6. BushCo has used the events of 2001 in a blatant attempt to destroy civil libertie

Ok, I'll address them:

Only a paranoid moron would believe that any of those six statements are true.

There. Now I've addressed them. Let's get back to the subject at hand, which is that Olbermann is barking mad. :)

"There. Now I've addressed them. Let's get back to the subject at hand, which is that Olbermann is barking mad. :)"

See, I don't think the guy is barking mad. He's just starting to catch on that the trouble with attacking O'Reilly is that O'Reilly fans are going to keep watching that show, not his. From a ratings standpoint, attacking Bush is a much more rational strategery.

Seven Machos said: Also, tron, how do you know that bad, evil "BushCo claims to be telepathic, by constantly telling people what they are really thinking and what their real motives are."

Simple. They said so themselves.. How many times have these people said they claim to know that a person is a traitor and wants to help terrorists? It happens anytime anyone disagrees with them.

Murtha and Cleland, bona fide war veterans who have suffered major medical problems (including PTSD and loss of limbs) and yet still served their country in Congress, are also called traitors and weaklings by the neoconservative punditry.

Warrantless spying, keeping citizens out of the country without proper legal process, trying to silence the press - these aren't infringements of civil liberties? What high school did you graduate from?

It is interesting that no one addressed my Patrick Henry quote either. Again, people who are too afraid to allow liberty are worse than chickenhawks. They are just plain cowards.

I will allow you the freedom to speak your mind without calling you a traitor, the freedom of religion without calling you a terrorist, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (and wiretapping) without threatening your life.

Are you brave enough to allow me the same courtesies? Are you brave enough to risk attack? Are you brave enough to be an American, or are do you prefer to be a scared little cog in an authoritarian machine?

Simple. They said so themselves. How many times have these people said they claim to know that a person is a traitor and wants to help terrorists?

It doesn't matter how many times "these people" have said it, because Bush hasn't said it. So you claiming that "Bush & Co" have said it is a lie -- just as it would be a lie (presumably) for me to say "Anti-Tron and the membership of NAMBLA are pedophiles and child molesters."

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. Bush claims to be in charge of his party, his administration, and the country.

Further, Bush has indeed said that people who speak out against his warrantless spying program and Iraq are "giving comfort to terrorists."

Since this is objectively not true (terrorists don't want to be ignored and have people go on with business-as-usual,like begin free to speak their mind, they want to be feared) then it is an attack on their motives.

I will take you at your word that you are not trying to troll. But please keep in mind a few things that, in my opinion, make for constructive conversation.

- Always assume the good faith of other commenters; if they disagree, look for things like different premises, assumptions, or values - not evil intent.- Don't resort to gratuitous insults or name-calling.- Don't tell other people what they are thinking.- Don't tell other people what their motives are or aren't.- Don't put words in other peoples' mouths.- Don't personalize the issues - don't take it as a personal insult that people disagree with you.- Don't try to bully people into adopting your point of view.- Never ascribe to malice, what can be explained by ignorance. Never ascribe to ignorance, what can be explained by differing perspectives or priorities.

I will take you at your word that you are not trying to troll. But please keep in mind a few things that, in my opinion, make for constructive conversation.

- Always assume the good faith of other commenters; if they disagree, look for things like different premises, assumptions, or values - not evil intent.- Don't resort to gratuitous insults or name-calling.- Don't tell other people what they are thinking.- Don't tell other people what their motives are or aren't.- Don't put words in other peoples' mouths.- Don't personalize the issues - don't take it as a personal insult that people disagree with you.- Don't try to bully people into adopting your point of view.- Never ascribe to malice, what can be explained by ignorance. Never ascribe to ignorance, what can be explained by differing perspectives or priorities.

I like your list of "debate rules." Too bad you can't enforce it everywhere. It didn't take long (2nd and 5th comments) in this "conversation" to attack a class of people (moonbats) and one person ("your questions and arguments aren't made in good faith"). Both of these violating "da rules."

I struggle to see how my alleged trolling was any worse than this. In my view, I was considerably less provocative. In my original comment, I listed some categories of people (fearful enough to sacrifice liberty, those who want to definitively control their fellow Americans) and let people decide on their own if they want to be in that category.

I did ask the rhetorical question "when did Americans become lame..." - the easy answer is "we didn't." So therefore the logical conclusion is that we don't need unconstitutional measures to provide "security."

Any other answer should spark some serious self-examination (soul-searching, if you will.)

Anti-tron: I agree more people should argue civilly. I disagree that your initial posts were very civil. For example:

"None of these things are debateable."

Wrong answer, friend. Nothing is not debateable. Trying to put your viewpoints out of the reach of argument is rude.

"Maybe those of you who are more afraid of freedom than of totalitarianism rejoice in #6."

Don't tell us what we are afraid of or what we rejoice in.

Most who support BushCo keep saying "Liberty is useless when you are dead."

Don't put words in our mouths.

I don't mean to single you out, necessarily. You are by no means the only rude person here. But there has been a problem with lefty trolls here, so I thought that you might want to be aware of the potential of having that appearance.

Would anybody care to tell me why anybody is even listening to this person? Here we are in the great conflict of the present time, fighting against jihadi fanatics who would kill our citizens and destroy our cities if only we let down our guard, and fools like this fellow and hysterical idiots like that Sheehan person get more than 15 seconds public attention? People, the barbarians are at the gates and you fritter with fools?

Bush decides executive and military policy, certainly. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, however, he doesn't decide every word spoken by every supporter of the war. :)

I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. Bush claims to be in charge of his party, his administration, and the country.

I assume you're speaking from ignorance rather than deliberately lying, but Bush doesn't claim to be in charge of the Republican Party. He is, in point of fact, NOT in charge of the Republican Party.

He is certainly in charge of his administration, but it has never been the position of his administration or anyone in it that everyone who disagrees with the conduct of the war is a traitor.

And if you think his position as representative of the American people makes him responsible for what everyone in America says, realize that that makes him responsible for what YOU say, too. :)

Further, Bush has indeed said that people who speak out against his warrantless spying program and Iraq are "giving comfort to terrorists."

Indeed he has. But that doesn't support your claim that Bush "calls anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist sympathizer."

Since this is objectively not true (terrorists don't want to be ignored and have people go on with business-as-usual,like begin free to speak their mind, they want to be feared) then it is an attack on their motives.

Keith Olberman is the most hateful person on television today. Perhaps he is unaware that the American people elected President Bush, therefore it might be a nice idea to refer to him with that title instead of 'Mr.'

Any other network would have let him go long ago, but Keith has something in common with the owner of that network.

Here is the problem with Keith Olbermann and nearly every "journalist", whether in print or on television: They are basically lazy people who have taken a passive-aggressive employment position that is pseudo-credible enough to get paid for it. If they were only intelligent enough to use the vigor and vehemence they utilize in their quest for the perfect lead or the big breaking story in a real job, imagine the productivity. They all know too well that a larger, entitlement-based government feeds into their lazy existence and helps them continue to preach a lazy lifestyle to those who are predisposed to blaming others for their failure yet unwilling to lift a finger to make their own lives better. Anger and blame are Olbermann's tools, and, while adept with these weapons of mass destruction, the result will always be his own failure.